Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a 1,000-row cap, English labels/units/attribution in the payload, the failure mode for non-BOK tables (403, not charged), and the x402 payment requirement with price. It omits things like rate limits, pagination, or auth setup for the x402 flow, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense block with a clear Input/Output/Example skeleton, front-loaded with the activation condition. Every clause carries information the agent needs — no filler, no restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does: JSON series with English labels, units, observations [{period,value}], row cap, and source attribution. Combined with the 403 behavior and pricing note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including cycle codes, period formats, and item examples. The description's worked example (?stat=722Y001&cycle=M&start=202401&end=202412&item=0101000) is a useful invocation pattern but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve official Bank of Korea statistics (base rate, money supply, key indicators) as a time series. The scope constraint 'Only BOK-authored tables are served' further narrows it and distinguishes it from sibling tools like kr_trade_exports_10day or kr_apartment_trades, which cover different data sources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The opening 'Use when you need official Bank of Korea statistics... as a time series' gives clear activation context, and the 'Only BOK-authored tables are served' line tells the agent when the tool will refuse. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly says when-not to use it, so routing against siblings is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.